Jurisdictional fact under Jagirs abolition law: High Court may decide whether tanks and wells were saved from vesting.

Section 17 of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act was confined to determining Jagirdari title or entitlement to compensation in resumed Jagir lands, not to deciding whether particular property vested in the State under Sections 4 and 5. The question whether tanks and wells were situated on occupied land and therefore protected by Section 5(c) was treated as a jurisdictional fact. On that basis, the SC noted that the High Court, in writ proceedings under Article 226, could determine the preliminary fact itself on independent judgment. Section 17 was therefore held inapplicable to the dispute.

---

---

Issues: Whether the dispute whether the tanks and wells fell within the protection of Section 5(c) of the Madhya Bharat Abolition of Jagirs Act, Samvat 2008 was one that had to be decided under Section 17 of that Act, or whether the High Court could itself determine the jurisdictional fact in writ proceedings under Article 226.

Analysis: Section 17 was held to be confined to questions of Jagirdari title or right in resumed Jagir lands arising in the course of compensation inquiry under the Abolition Act. Its object was to enable the Jagir Commissioner to determine who should receive compensation, not to decide whether particular property vested in the State under Sections 4 and 5. The question whether the tanks and wells were situated on occupied land and therefore saved from vesting under Section 5(c) was treated as a jurisdictional fact. Where the existence of jurisdiction depends on such a preliminary fact, the High Court in writ proceedings may determine that fact on its own independent judgment.

Conclusion: Section 17 did not govern the dispute under Section 5(c), and the High Court was required to decide the jurisdictional fact itself in the writ petition.

---